Mentorship education has been shown to positively impact the experiences of mentors and mentees. Entering Mentoring, an evidence-based mentor training curriculum, has been widely implemented to train research mentors across the country, including the mentors of clinical and translational scientists. Facilitating Entering Mentoring, a train-the-trainer based workshop, has been used as a dissemination strategy to increase the number of facilitators prepared to implement mentor training in their local contexts. The objective of this research was to examine individual and institutional factors promoting and limiting mentor training implementation efforts of trained facilitators.

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we examined self-reported data from surveys administered annually to Facilitating Entering Mentoring participants. Data analyses included t-tests to compare differences between the implementer and non-implementer groups and binary logistic regression to determine which factors best predict implementation status.

Factors associated with the inner setting domain were found to have the most impact on implementation efforts, with administrative support, leadership support, and interest from potential participants being the most significant predictors of implementation. Additionally, those who implemented were more likely to report receiving institutional support compared with those who did not implement the intervention. Those who did not implement were more likely to report the presence of perceived institutional barriers.

The CFIR model provides a useful framework for understanding factors that promote and limit implementation outcomes of an evidence-based research mentor training intervention. Findings emphasize the role of institutional support to promote the implementation of research mentor training.

Effective mentorship is recognized as critical for the professional development of clinical and translational investigators. Evidence-based mentorship training prompted the development of training for mentees at early career stages who are navigating both mentor and mentee roles. The curriculum titled, Mentoring Up for Early Career Investigators, recognizes the importance of building mentee self-efficacy across proactive mentorship skills and competencies.

Mentoring Up for Early Career Investigators curriculum is based on the research mentor training approach in Entering Mentoring. Pilot implementations of Mentoring Up at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Pennsylvania had positive training outcomes for KL2 Scholars. Subsequently, Mentoring Up was implemented and evaluated at several other institutions. For 26 implementations longer than 4 hours, data were collected on trainee demographics, satisfaction with training, skill gains across mentorship competencies, and the intent to change mentoring behaviors following training.

88% of participants rated the mentee training as valuable. Significant skill gains were reported across all mentorship competencies following training. 77% reported specific plans to change or augment their mentoring behaviors because of the training. The majority aligned with mentorship skill competencies (aligning expectations, effective communications) or mentoring up strategies (voicing needs, setting boundaries, communicating proactively).

Mentoring Up training is effective in advancing mentee skills and promoting strategies to be more proactive in getting their mentoring needs met. Mentoring Up offers an expansion to the suite of mentorship education and resources to support the career advancement of all in the translational science workforce.

The Mentoring Competency Assessment (MCA) is an example of a validated instrument for measuring mentor skills for postsecondary Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine research. The purpose of this study was to revalidate the MCA scale using a larger, more diverse population since the original MCA was validated on a small sample of predominantly senior white male faculty.

The MCA was completed by 1626 mentors from a survey data set of 1759 respondents who participated in eight or more hours of face-to-face Entering Mentoring-based training between 2010 and 2019. We conducted principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation to investigate the internal structure of the MCA and Hatcher’s criteria were applied. After a team of mentoring experts independently interpreted the PCA results and reached a consensus on the interpretations of the components, factor analysis and internal consistency reliability analysis were applied to assess the construct validity and the reliability.

While the 26-item MCA instrument was originally validated with six subscales, through the factor and reliability analyses, all the parameter estimates for each item of seven components of 24-item MCA were significant and had relatively high internal consistency; the alpha coefficient for the components ranged from 0.77 to 0.86.

Five items from the MCA have been dropped, leaving a condensed 21 item scale (MCA-21) which loads onto six competencies, and should now be used to effectively measure mentoring skills. We provide recommendations for furthering the scale development and validation of common measures.

Mentorship is critical for faculty success, satisfaction, and engagement. However, many faculty, particularly underrepresented racial/ethnic (UR) faculty, lack access to high-quality mentoring. In an effort to improve mentoring for all faculty, we developed and implemented a formally structured faculty mentor training program (FMTP) across UC San Diego Health Sciences, which included institutional support, mentorship training, and department/division mentorship programs.

FMTP impact was evaluated using three primary outcome variables: mentoring quality, mentoring behaviors, and institutional climate. Participants’ self-assessed mentoring competencies were measured using validated instruments.

A total of 391 (23%) of Health Sciences faculty participated in FMTP. Participation rate was higher for women than men (30% versus 17%) and highest for UR faculty (39%). FMTP was implemented in 16 of 19 departments. Self-reported mentoring improved for FMTP participants with mentoring quality (p = 0.009) and meeting mentees’ expectations (p = 0.01) continuing to improve for up to 2 years after training. However, participants were unsure if they were meeting UR mentees’ expectations. FMTP participants were significantly more satisfied with mentoring quality (p < 0.001) compared to non-participants, with the greatest increase in satisfaction reported by UR faculty (38–61%). UR faculty reported improved overall morale (51–61%) and a perception that the environment was supportive for UR faculty (48–70%).

The implementation of a system-wide formal structured FMTP was associated with improved faculty satisfaction, quality of mentoring, and institutional climate, especially for UR faculty.